The Federalist Papers were written to explain and defend the Constitution AS IT HAD BEEN WRITTEN!

They aren't what Hamilton thought SHOULD be in the Constitution.

Sia: "That does NOT mean that was the FINAL AGREEMENT when it was finally written."

"...finally..." written?

What the hell does THAT mean? The Constitution had ALREADY BEEN WRITTEN and had been sent to the States for ratification.The writers of the Federalist Papers (yes - writers PLURAL) were writing about what WAS IN THE CONSTITUTION!

"According to historian Richard B. Morris, the essays that make up The Federalist Papers are an 'incomparable expositionof the Constitution, a classic in political science unsurpassed in both breadth and depth by the product of any laterAmerican writer'."

It's clear that you haven't read the Federalist Papers, have no idea why or when they were written, have no idea whowrote them, or that they discuss WHAT WAS ACTUALLY PUT IN THE CONSTITUTION!!!

And it is the HEIGHT of ignorance to claim that "...it matters NOT what Hamilton, alone, thought, wrote, or said."

The Federalist Papers were NOT written by Hamilton, alone.

And it most certainly DOES matter what the writers [plural] of the Constitution intended for it to do -- and NOT do.

verbiage by someone who was actually involved in selecting the verbiage... To me, that is sufficient to reach a conclusion pending any other evidence being offered. You, among others, are suggesting... more

WHO the hell do you and SES think that you are that you can arbitrarily declare something you BELIEVE as FACT and no one can dispute you when ACTUAL experts cannot agree on it ????? I don't have to... more

We have an explanation by someone who was there. We have opinions by board posters... Which should we give more credibility to? I know you would PREFER to give more credibility to whatever position... more

are somehow the be all and end all of discussion just because one of them wrote something in particular that bolsters your argument ??? https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=422700 The... more

"The Federalist Papers ill serves judicial opinion writing when cited for anything but analyzing the largest constitutional structures and their purposes "...yeah, like impeachment and how a sitting... more

...a glaring hole. What if the President were indicted, but refused to leave office? What recourse would we have? The whole government could collapse! We need a way to remove a President from office, ... more

Amadeus: "I would wager that the Federalist Papers offer no argument about the prosecution and indictment of the President for two reasons." That's incorrect. In TWO PLACES, the Federalist Papers say ... more

The first reference (#65) actually uses "still be liable" which indicates a continuing state of vulnerability to prosecution. The second (#69) presupposes that impeachment would come first, and then... more

I can point to what the Constitution actually says, and to the words of Alexander Hamilton, to support my position. The other position can only SPECULATE based on what is NOT in the Constitution, and ... more

...you are not pointing to what the Constitution says. You are pointing to a blank spot. The Constitution does NOT say, for example: "The President must be impeached and removed from office before... more

with the diametrically opposed arguments of the experts... Some who believe impeachment MUST be first before indictment and others who believe the order is NOT spelled out specifically. In the end,... more

Sia: "Some who believe impeachment MUST be first before indictment and others who believe the order is NOT spelled out specifically ." The argument isn't that the order of impeachment-indictment... more

The Federalist Papers : No. 65 - "After having been sentenced to a prepetual ostracism from the esteem and confidence, and honors and emoluments of his country, he will still be liable to prosecution ... more

Words have meaning. "Will still be" means that he already was "liable to prosecution and punishment in the ordinary course of law" but the state of being liable to such continued after impeachment... more

Hamilton in two places in the Federalist Papers says that indictment et al can come AFTER impeachment, and your interpretation of the meaning of "still" is in error, as evidenced by the fact that... more

If you have a second reference, feel free to offer it. I'm open to seeing it. Of course, indictment can come after impeachment. And it can come before, if necessary. My interpretation of the meaning... more

designed to convince people of the state of NY to ratify the new constitution. They are riddled with errors and contradictions and clearly intended to sell the constitution. The language used by the... more

Just because YOU interpret my words as the idiotic and false things you CLAIM I said, doesn't change a damned thing as to what I ACTUALLY said. If or when you decide to HONESTLY discuss this issue,... more

...slam dunk to me is that in the Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton was trying to assure Delegates that a President would not be immune to punishment and removal from office, as the British King... more

...even after they've been countered. I don't see a reason to keep repeating the counterarguments. You can go back and reread them if you've forgotten them. Suffice it to say that you are no more... more

...what COULDN'T happen, as it is to expect a Weatherman to say "It isn't going to rain Orange Juice". It's as stupid to expect the Constitution, which contains VERY DETAILED INSTRUCTIONS on how a... more

Is the President a citizen? Yes. The President must be a citizen according to the Constitution. Are all citizens bound by the law? Yes, all citizens are bound by the law. Is the President, then,... more

Here again we can read the posts and see that you are in fast being dishonest about the content of them. You have in fact claimed quotes that were not made to make your arguments. That is dishonest... more

Yes, it was already written, but the main purpose of The Federalist Papers was to explain the newly proposed constitution (we had a first constitution called The Articles of Confederation) to the... more

My point is that anonymous letters to a NEWSPAPER to sell ratification to one particular state is HARDLY proof positive of the precise meaning of the constitution. Legal SCHOLARS disagree as to what... more

...and what the writers of the Constitution SAID was in the Constitution. YOUR argument is "It isn't in the Constitution, which means it COULD BE in the Constitution, and because I WANT it to be in... more

My argument is that the anonymous letters that Hamilton authored were HIS ATTEMPTS to sell the constitution to the citizens of NY. Letters to the editor are NOT legal documents, (nor do they carry... more

I did not call you a liar. I pointed out that in fact, your claim that "It isn't in the Constitution, which means it COULD BE in the Constitution, and because I WANT it to be in the Constitution, it... more

...all other processes of the common law"? Is that in the Constitution. Hint: It is not. So, if Sia thinks that a sitting President CAN BE indicted, she most certainly IS saying "It isn't in the... more

How MANY times are we expected to respond to the same nonsense and posts riddles with lies and misrepresentations ?? I'm done reacting to his drama and blatant misrepresentation of what I write.... more